Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
piecesofpizza

Ranked Redesign Proposal- Progress via XP

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Supertester
17 posts
14,331 battles

One of the constant gripes I’ve heard over and over this season centers around frustration with ranked teams and the stress of the current ranked system. The majority of the unicums I know were not enjoying it and a lot of the overall playerbase seemed to espouse a similar sentiment. 

Consequently I wanted to propose a potential system to address this problem after coming up with the idea when talking with JohnTheRuthless. Since most of the players I know well stem from the comp community I wanted to run the idea by a wider audience.

The core of the solution revolves around using experience as the metric to advance up the ranks as opposed to the star system. Ranks are gained through the base XP earned in ranked matches, with a certain amount required per rank. Losses no longer cause players to lose stars or ranks with the major penalty coming from the forfeiture of the additional experience that would have been gained from a win. The system still rewards individual skill as those individuals who are able to win consistently will continue to be rewarded with higher XP gains and a quicker rank out. Ultimately the intent is to maintain most of the challenge of ranking out while creating a system that helps out average players and skilled players alike with a stress reduction for everyone involved.

Ideally this could be a system demo’d in a ranked sprint first as opposed to a full ranked season.

 

 

  • Cool 8
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
911
[VW]
Members
2,935 posts
15,478 battles

This is not a new idea. I meself have already espoused it at least a year ago, and even did so again tonight in the thread kvetching about rental ships. WGs response so far: f u, pay me.

Edited by monpetitloup
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
808 posts
13,368 battles

If you don't allow for the steps backwards, then everyone will be rank 1.

If that is the system you want, don't call it ranked.

Call it Grinded.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79
[AFW]
[AFW]
Members
290 posts
3,751 battles

Wouldn't this just turn ranked into randoms with no team play at all?  Just hide and farm to get the XP needed? At least in ranked now there is some resemblance of team work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,146
[DEV_X]
[DEV_X]
Members
1,758 posts
18,953 battles
4 minutes ago, Big_Pimpin said:

Wouldn't this just turn ranked into randoms with no team play at all?  Just hide and farm to get the XP needed? At least in ranked now there is some resemblance of team work.

That's sort of questionable though, due to the save a star system. Damage farming and kill "securing" are always going to cause disproportionate experience gain. Right now, a great player can begin to position to help his team and the moment things start to turn around for his team, turn and damage farm to keep his star. 

I believe this causes people to only half commit to winning, as at the loss of a single ship or capture point they can give up completely on team work and begin to work on saving a star.

I just "FEEL" like I see a lot of players that sort of begin to position only to change their minds and instead farm. It might be conformation bias but in all honesty saving your ship to the end, destroying a couple low health enemies while farming from afar, seems to be a top prioirty.

Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,624 posts
6,413 battles
17 minutes ago, Big_Pimpin said:

Wouldn't this just turn ranked into randoms with no team play at all?  Just hide and farm to get the XP needed? At least in ranked now there is some resemblance of team work.

Simple solution, losers either get no progress or such little progress it would take say, 5 times as long to rank up/out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
916
[WOLF5]
Members
2,388 posts
2,982 battles

Ranked is special because you have to have a certain WR to reach rank 1. There's no guarantee that if you throw enough time at the game you will get there. It's frustrating for sure, but that just makes the achievement better. If you make so that all you have to do is collect a certain amount of XP, then any 30% guy can get there eventually.

You've proposed 2 very different game modes. Ranked might have it's problems, but removing a way to lose ranks wouldn't make it better, it would make it something else.

Making things XP based would just encourage botting or YOLOing, which are even more frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,539
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
21,342 posts
11,846 battles

This has been suggested many times in many different formats but this is still worthy of an up one. :Smile_great:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,100
[INTEL]
Members
10,638 posts
29,962 battles

Its really a good idea. 

It seems that all progress would be forward. What if a certain number of losses in a row started generating negative XP? Or would it be better to simply hold it at zero XP being the lowest you could reach.

Also, what if you generated points per certain level if XP? You need X points to get a star, and to get points your base XP must exceed 500. That would exclude botters, AFKers, and idiots who rush in right away and die...

Base XP would be so much better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,043
[Y0L0]
Members
9,873 posts
13,704 battles

easiest way to figure ranking is using  final position . 

 

for example.      top XP  earner in  winning team gets 3 point,  2nd get 2 and 3rd get 1 with only top in losing team getting 1 point.           You have to have  100 point over 100 point over 100 match to rank out in tier 8-10 for example.        that would make it fun and  less stressful.  it also make   divisioning less important.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,638
[TARK]
Members
3,319 posts
1,435 battles

It makes progress to easy to understand. 

WG is tapping into the 'just one more match' psychological trick in our heads...while simultaneously abusing it with the star system.

Make it too straightforward and skill based and people will just plan their progress and not binge play.

It's one of the many ways people use knowledge of psychology to make the world worse.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,709
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,521 posts
12,810 battles
1 hour ago, piecesofpizza said:

One of the constant gripes I’ve heard over and over this season centers around frustration with ranked teams and the stress of the current ranked system. The majority of the unicums I know were not enjoying it and a lot of the overall playerbase seemed to espouse a similar sentiment. 

Consequently I wanted to propose a potential system to address this problem after coming up with the idea when talking with JohnTheRuthless. Since most of the players I know well stem from the comp community I wanted to run the idea by a wider audience.

The core of the solution revolves around using experience as the metric to advance up the ranks as opposed to the star system. Ranks are gained through the base XP earned in ranked matches, with a certain amount required per rank. Losses no longer cause players to lose stars or ranks with the major penalty coming from the forfeiture of the additional experience that would have been gained from a win. The system still rewards individual skill as those individuals who are able to win consistently will continue to be rewarded with higher XP gains and a quicker rank out. Ultimately the intent is to maintain most of the challenge of ranking out while creating a system that helps out average players and skilled players alike with a stress reduction for everyone involved.

Ideally this could be a system demo’d in a ranked sprint first as opposed to a full ranked season.

 

 

I think you have a good idea, but some modifications are necessary.  I think you'd want a hybrid star/exp system, where you need to progressively make more exp in a match to earn a star toward advancement.  That keeps people from failing forward, while removing the rage aspect of losing progress.  People will eventually stop progressing when they get to their skill limits, because they simply will not be able to pull enough exp to earn a star. 

Think of it kind of how the clan naval battles currently work.  At lower exp levels, getting those stars is pretty easy.  When you start needing 1.5k, getting the stars is more dicey.  Even as an above average player who is capable of pulling 1.5k games pretty easy, blowing an attempt on getting them is something I consider before I try it.  Setting the bar at 2k a game, and I might get 2-3 of them/night.  Needing much higher than that is going to be a strain on my ability to progress.

Edited by crzyhawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
182
[KSD]
Beta Testers
509 posts
13,828 battles

The XP needs to be a mix of Naval Battles style, i.e. Rank 18, two games with base XP over 500.  Rank 17 three games base XP over 600 and so on.

If you earn less than 100 base xp than the required amount you lose a star and go backwards.  

This would require active participation in the battle so afk and yolo would not get far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,977
[HYDRO]
Members
3,560 posts
5,062 battles

The idea has merit, but then you have to think up of a way of awarding XP properly and gauge what truly helps towards a win.

If you went by the current XP system,  classes relying on damage, that appears to be favored so far XP wise, would simply dominate. 

In the meantime classes that rely on objective control would have issues topping the scoreboard and getting the XP needed at a far slower pace.

You possibly risk having an even more one dimensional Ranked. While there already exists a meta of competitive ships, imagine that turned up to 11 since everyone will play specific classes to farm damage, earn the XP asap and advance to the next rank.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,487
[CUTER]
Members
2,860 posts
12,043 battles

To check the constant progress, set levels of performance.

For example cant break 800 XP lose a star, 1500 XP gain a star.

Now you would just need to balance the XP economy for all ship types and their influence over the battle.  The major issue this season was using me as an example I saved 10 stars this season playing DDs which is the ship type I am best in.  Had I chosen to play CA or even BB I would have no issues having three to four times as many stars simply by dealing damage.  That's not balanced.

Until they can balance the economy for all ship types I am against all save a star mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,709
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,521 posts
12,810 battles

Save a star is not a problem.  Losing a star for a loss and gaining a star on any win regardless of participation is the problem.  You should never go back, for any reason.  Ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,052
[NMKJT]
Members
3,767 posts

I think it is a competitive mode and should be based on wins. 

I don't like save a star, but I think you can't lose a rank once you attain it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[BABS]
Members
49 posts
2,998 battles

I like the xp gate idea, but agree that measuring and awarding intangible effects on a game would be very difficult. The only thing I can think of would be to have invisible areas on the map that the game uses to determine participation. An example could be a cap being surrounded by another larger circle, those in the circle would be credited with assisting with the objective. Another might be potential damage to a ship in a cap. However, until there's a way to effectively detect and measure the sort of "oh ****" mentality some teams get when suddenly rushed by one or two determined opponents, it'll never be truly accurate. The YOLO charge may be kinda dumb, but if it puts the entire enemy team out of position and allows a win, how does the server know this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,131
[SALVO]
Members
21,712 posts
22,016 battles

 

Here's an idea that I came up with a couple of days ago.  Thoughts?

 

On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 6:00 PM, Crucis said:

I think that the current advancement system is very flawed, because it's too dependent on team mates, and too dependent on winning or losing.  That said, the idea of Ranked's dependency on winning or losing is also strongly linked to the underlying question of what is Ranked supposed to be about in the first place.  Is it about individual achievement or about winning and losing?  If it's about individual achievement, I think that too much of a linkage to winning or losing is almost unfair because you're so dependent on the performance of team mates over whom you have no control.

So, here's my thought.  If it's supposed to be about individual achievement (and since we would still be stuck with a team based format), I suggest a reduction in the amount to which winning and losing counts towards success in Ranked.  Note that I'm NOT saying to completely remove W/L from the mix, but make more room for individual achievement.

What I suggest is this.

Do away with the existing advancement system entirely.  Do Ranked "scoring" in a completely different way.  Have no star system, possibly no obvious advancement system.  Have Ranked be a version of Random battles except with all ships at the same tier.  Maybe even 12v12 like randoms.  And have no post battle star system.  Just do BXP, and regular XP, and so on, same as normal.  

Have Ranked be 100 battles long for each player.  The season might be 30 days long, but you only get to play 100 battles in Ranked. Then after the 30 days are over, sort the list of participants by the base XP earned in their 100 battles, and divide up them up as follows:

  • Top 10% (91% to 100%) of players by BXP have achieved the Admiral rank.
  • The second 10% (81% to 90%) have achieved Commodore rank.  (This could also be the next 20% of players, i.e. 71% to 90%)
  • And break down the remaining players into Captain, Commander, and Lieutenant ranks.

The breakdown could also be just into five 20 percentile point groups (i.e. 1 to 20%, 21-40%, 41-60%, 61-80%, and finally 81-100%).

Note that rewards would be based on your Rank (Admiral, Commodore, Captain, Commander, or Lieutenant) after the Ranked season ended.

Also, there's no reason that the rank structure couldn't be split into 10 ranks (every 10th percentile: 1-10, 11-20, 21-30, and so on up to 81-90, and finally 91-100%).  And then have ten ranks to match.  USN-ish based Ranks would look something like this, from highest to lowest:

  1. Fleet Admiral
  2. Admiral
  3. Vice Admiral
  4. Rear Admiral
  5. Commodore
  6. Captain 
  7. Commander
  8. Lt. Commander
  9. Lieutenant
  10. Ensign

And each rank would come with a different level of reward.

 

Note that there's probably no reason that the rank progress couldn't be kept in some regularly adjusted list, like clan rankings, so that players knew how they stood in the Ranked standings.

Also note that after your 100 battles of Ranked are up for the season, you can't play any more ranked battles for the season.  

I think that some of the upsides of this model might be:

1. There'd be no spamming of battles to rank out.  You'd have only 100 battles in which to do your best.  Also, at 100 battles, the number isn't so high that it's hard work to do all 100 battles in 30 days.  You could literally do just 3.33 battles per day (10 battles every 3 days) and complete the 100 battles.  Or you could spam a good number of battles every few days and have some off days, and still easily finish the 100 battles.  

2. Because you get the best BXP results from winning, it would be most advantageous to play to win, since an average game in a win is still often more productive BXP-wise than a good game in a loss.  To get really good BXP in a loss, you have to have an outstanding game.  Playing to win in this model is important, but not strictly because it's all or nothing, win or lose.  It's just that winning is the best way of maximizing your BXP rewards.

3. The season, while 30 days long would really only be 100 battles in actual length.  And it shouldn't feel like it's as much of a painful grind.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×